Friday 29 Mar 2024
By
main news image

KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 23): Lead defence counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah is not discounting a full acquital of his client Datuk Seri Najib Razak in the SRC trial, or at least see some of the seven crimimal charges being dropped this Nov 11.

At a press conference today, Shafee said both situations are possible when High Court Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali makes his ruling on whether to acquit the 66-year-old former Prime Minister or order him to enter his defence.

“There could be some charges dropped...I can’t imagine which charge [where the High Court] can call [Najib] for defence, because all the charges were poorly [executed],” said Shafee.

“I can’t imagine. It’s almost like tossing a coin,” he added.

The prosecution and defence have just concluded their two-day oral submissions before Justice Mohd Nazlan today to accompany hundreds of pages of written submissions by both parties.

Najib is currently facing one count of abuse of power, three counts of criminal breach of trust and three counts of money-laundering in relation to the alleged embezzlement of RM42 million from Minister of Finance Inc (MoF Inc) company SRC International Sdn Bhd from 2014-2015.

The defence has repeatedly based their argument on the grounds that Najib was misled into believing that the monies entering his account were donations from Saudi Arabia.

That the prosecution “had no qualms” with the notion that monies which entered Najib’s account prior to the RM42 million were Arab donations said something, according to the defence.

“The investigation officer (MACC official Rosli Hussain) testified that he had carried on his investigations uninterrupted in 2015,” highlighted defence counsel Harvinderjit Singh.

“There were investigations to ascertain the [genuineness of the] letters [from Saudi Arabia claiming the money is donated to Najib], but the outcome was inconclusive,” Harvinderjit added.

Najib’s AmBank accounts are also the subject of the separate 1MDB-Tanore trial, where over US$730 million worth of monies allegedly went into his account between 2011 and 2013.

A total of US$620 million was allegedly sent back to the Arab donor.

While the lawyer claimed the MACC investigations were not interrupted, the fact was that the police — then under Inspector General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar — had arrested and detained Rosli and MACC deputy public prosecutor Ahmad Shazalee Abdul Khairi.

Meanwhile, Harvindejit also highlighted discrepancies in the 2015 and 2018 statements of former SRC director Datuk Suboh Md Yasin, who said he signed SRC documents relating to the fund transfers.

“Ultimately, one of the witnesses that the prosecution relied on to suggest money from SRC moved through some sort of Najib’s involvement, before he came to court, said he did not know anything about the transactions.

“But after Najib was charged, another statement of his was taken by the [authorities], and this time he said he signed all the documents,” said Harvinderjit.

“He already changed his statement, so that is something very serious... to consider,” he added.

Prosecution: Weight of evidence sufficient to convict Najib

While the defence cited they have a strong case to suggest an acquittal, the prosecution led by Attorney General Tan Sri Tommy Thomas contended that it had adduced credible evidence on each and every essential ingredient of the seven offences where the cross-examination of its witnesses remain unshaken.

“We submit that the witnesses that have been called are sufficient to prove the prosecution's case and there is no need to call further witnesses as the burden to prove a prima facie case (or having a case to answer) has been met.

“The weight of the evidence is sufficient to convict the accused (Najib) should he be called to enter his defence,” the prosecution said in their written submissions.

They added that while questions are raised about not calling certain individuals — especially businessman Low Taek Jho and former SRC CEO Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil who are both still at large — as witnesses, the court can adduce adverse inference on the accused based on the evidence and testimony of other witnesses that had shown the main elements of the charge.

      Print
      Text Size
      Share